Editor’s note: Longtime AP reporter Bob Anez sent me an email responding to my Sunday column, and when someone with Bob’s experience has something to say, you listen. I liked what he said so much—while realizing how ill-thought-out my own position had been—that I asked if I could print his email. He said yes:
I have met few journalists I respect more than you, but I disagree with a few comments in your column regarding the secret GOP caucus last week.
You were spot on in rebutting Sen. Jeff Essmann’s amazingly uninformed view of both the Montana Constitution and case law on the subject of party caucuses and insisting legislators comply with the same. But I was more than surprised about your lack of support for open government in this matter.
Bob Anez
First, the argument you raise about open caucuses being inconvenient for lawmakers and supposedly leading to more “partisan gridlock” is shallow. That same argument could be applied to those meetings of legislative committees when members vote on the fate of bills for which hearings have been held. (You may recall that, before the 1972 constitution was adopted, those types of meetings were closed to the public.)
A lot of political posturing occurs during those “executive sessions” and can increase partisan bickering. But I cannot imagine you would suggest those be closed to the public. What about meetings between the governor and legislative leaders? Should those be closed to the public because it might be more “efficient” for the participants to talk in private?
Second, the notion of comparing party caucuses to football huddles was the same argument used at the time of the lawsuit by then-Speaker John Mercer. The easy answer is that legislative activities are not a game played by millionaires.
Lawmakers’ caucus meetings affect public policy in profound ways as they map strategies for passing or killing legislation, while offensive huddles in football dictate the potential outcome of the next play. Likening the legislative caucuses to football games belittles the significance of the effect lawmakers’ actions have on Montanans’ lives.
Third, at the time of the caucus lawsuit, those of us covering the Legislature on a full-time basis continually heard reports of some lawmakers being bullied, harassed and threatened in party caucuses if they did not toe the party line on votes for certain bills. Their bills would be summarily killed if they did not vote as the leadership wanted, we were told. Votes were bartered, we heard.
Finally, you repeatedly reference “the law” and talk about Republican legislators breaking “laws.” That does not do justice to the issue. It isn’t about a “law”; it is about a constitutional right. The two concepts are not interchangeable. A constitutional right is paramount; a statute is not.
Democracy is a messy business sometimes and open government can be inconvenient and bothersome. I, unlike most reporters who have covered government, know that from the inside as well. But that’s just too damn bad. The secrecy and backrooms utilized by Congress have done little to lessen the “gridlock” we all detest. It defies logic to suggest that bringing some of that back to Montana will improve the political landscape here.
As a journalist for 30 years, I was involved in a number of battles over the public’s right to know. Based on my years of covering government and my years in government, I cannot agree with you that “private caucuses are good for the efficient functioning of government.”
Such an argument could extend to a host of governmental boards and commissions—far beyond party legislative caucuses—and the result would cripple Montanans’ ability to keep track of what government is doing and render meaningless the citizens’ right to know.
Sadly, in this regard, you seem to have chosen “efficiency” of government over the broad public scrutiny necessary to have a government for the people.
Bob Anez, a native of Havre, earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Montana in 1975. He worked for newspapers in Kalispell and Great Falls for six years before joining the Associated Press in 1981. He worked for the AP in Helena for 24 years, mostly covering government and politics. He retired from the AP in 2005 and became communications director for the Montana Department of Corrections. After eight years of that, he retired for good, maybe, in 2013.
